The Local Transitional Council of Delmas and Another v Boshoff

An informal township, Botleng Extension 3, was established under the Less Formal Township Establishment Act 13 of 1991 by the predecessors of the appellants. The township was developed on land neighbouring the respondent’s farm. From as early as October 1993, before statutory authorisation was complete and in contravention of section 13 of the Act, inhabitants were allowed to occupy erven and erect informal dwellings. As a result of conduct by some township inhabitants, the respondent suffered severe harm, including pollution, theft and loss of livestock, destruction of crops and infrastructure, and threats of violence. In June 1994 the respondent and his family were forced to abandon the farm. He sued the appellants, as statutory successors to the town committee and the provincial administration, alleging that their omissions in failing to take preventative measures caused his loss.

The appeal was upheld. The Supreme Court of Appeal substituted the trial court’s order with a declaration that any negligent omissions by the appellants would be wrongful and potentially actionable. All other issues, including negligence, causation and quantum of damages, were postponed for later determination. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in both the trial court and on appeal.

The case is a leading authority on the distinction between wrongfulness and negligence in South African delict law, particularly in cases involving omissions by public authorities. It confirms that statutory authority does not automatically shield public bodies from delictual liability and clarifies that liability depends on a careful, structured enquiry into wrongfulness, negligence and causation. It also serves as a cautionary judgment on the improper use of separation of issues under Rule 33(4).